PARIS — The U.S. government has again singled out China andIndia as nations that maintain barriers to foreign satellite service providersin order to protect domestic, government-owned satellite operators.
In its annual report on telecommunications trade agreements,the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) pays special attention to the state of thesatellite services markets in the world’s two most populous nations, both ofwhich are fast expanding their satellite telecommunications sectors.
The report concludes that not much has changed in eithernation despite regular promises from their government agencies that tradebarriers would be eased.
The USTR report says U.S.organizations asked to provide an update on the situation in China and India found a continued “lack oftransparency in rules governing the provision of satellite capacity” in bothnations. “The requirement to sell capacity only through government-ownedsatellite operators is problematic.”
In both nations, the end result is the same — a governmentroadblock to access to end users of satellite services that givesgovernment-owned satellite operators a de facto monopoly on the business exceptin exceptional circumstances.
But Chinaand Indiaachieve this result in different ways.
The China Direct Broadcast Satellite Co., China DBSat —which was created in 2007 to merge China’s three domestic satellitefleet operators — is the sole company that has a satellite services operatinglicense. Two Hong Kong companies that arepartly owned by the Chinese government — APT Satellite Holdings and AsiaSat —have access to the Chinese market. But both have reported difficulty inmaintaining their market shares in recent years for reasons that may reflectChinese government policy more than decisions by customers.
In the case of India, the Indian Space ResearchOrganisation (ISRO), which is the nation’s space agency, operates a fleet ofInsat telecommunications satellites. ISRO has had trouble maintainingsufficient Insat capacity to meet India’s exploding demand forsatellite television, and in these circumstances it has permitted non-Indiansatellite fleet operators into the market.
But the market entry is done only through ISRO, meaning aforeign satellite operator must come to terms with its ostensible competitor,ISRO, in order to reach Indian customers. ISRO purchases the satellitebandwidth at prices it deems acceptable, and then resells it to customers.
In one of a dozen industry submissions that informed theUSTR report, the U.S. Satellite Industry Association (SIA) said ISRO then addsits own charges to the initial satellite bandwidth price, making that capacitymore expensive than what it would be without ISRO acting as a middleman.
“ISRO may structure contracts with the goal (explicitlystated at times) of moving the service to one of ISRO’s satellites oncecapacity is available,” the SIA said in its statement to USTR. “ISRO determinesthe rate at which the market grows.”
All this would appear at variance with India’s New TelecomPolicy of 1999, which grants access by Indian customers to Indian and foreignsatellite bandwidth, in coordination with India’s Department of Space. ISRO ispart of the Department of Space.
SIA said that once Indian authorities have determined thatthe foreign satellite operator has completed broadcast frequency coordinationwith the Insat system — a procedure handled through the Geneva-basedInternational Telecommunication Union, a U.N. affiliate — “there are notechnical or commercial reasons why foreign satellite capacity should need tobe procured through [ISRO], a direct competitor of foreign satellite operators.
“Local users in Indiashould be allowed to contract directly with any satellite operator that has theability to serve India,”SIA said in its statement.
Another curiosity in India’s regulatory regime, SIAsaid, is its ban on the use of Ku-band frequencies for broadcasts to cable headends. With Ku-band globally accepted as suitable for these transmissions,“[t]here is no technical or logical policy reason for this restriction,” SIAsaid.
Finally, Indian regulations on mobile satellite servicesinclude a security-related requirement that, in order to receive an operatinglicense in India, mobilesatellite operators must deploy gateway infrastructure within India. For asystem such as Iridium, which uses links between satellites to bypass the needfor an elaborate network of gateway Earth stations, the regulation is anobvious handicap. SIA said “more-advanced technologies other than locallyestablished gateways can fully meet security concerns. This requirement shouldbe removed.”
The principal commercial satellite fleet operators have longadopted a do-not-make-waves policy with respect to the barriers in India andChina, hoping that over time, the evolution of demand in these two nations willbe sufficient to crack open their markets.
USTR said, as it has previously, that it will “continue toraise the … concerns regarding the barriers to supplying satellite services inChina and India and will encourage these countries to consider changes to theirrespective frameworks.”
The USTR report, “2011 Section 1377 Review on ComplianceWith Telecommunications Trade Agreements,” is dated April 2011 and reflectsindustry and trade association comments submitted at the end of 2010. The reportis mandated annually as part of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of1988.
In its annual report on telecommunications trade agreements,the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) pays special attention to the state of thesatellite services markets in the world’s two most populous nations, both ofwhich are fast expanding their satellite telecommunications sectors.
The report concludes that not much has changed in eithernation despite regular promises from their government agencies that tradebarriers would be eased.
The USTR report says U.S.organizations asked to provide an update on the situation in China and India found a continued “lack oftransparency in rules governing the provision of satellite capacity” in bothnations. “The requirement to sell capacity only through government-ownedsatellite operators is problematic.”
In both nations, the end result is the same — a governmentroadblock to access to end users of satellite services that givesgovernment-owned satellite operators a de facto monopoly on the business exceptin exceptional circumstances.
But Chinaand Indiaachieve this result in different ways.
The China Direct Broadcast Satellite Co., China DBSat —which was created in 2007 to merge China’s three domestic satellitefleet operators — is the sole company that has a satellite services operatinglicense. Two Hong Kong companies that arepartly owned by the Chinese government — APT Satellite Holdings and AsiaSat —have access to the Chinese market. But both have reported difficulty inmaintaining their market shares in recent years for reasons that may reflectChinese government policy more than decisions by customers.
In the case of India, the Indian Space ResearchOrganisation (ISRO), which is the nation’s space agency, operates a fleet ofInsat telecommunications satellites. ISRO has had trouble maintainingsufficient Insat capacity to meet India’s exploding demand forsatellite television, and in these circumstances it has permitted non-Indiansatellite fleet operators into the market.
But the market entry is done only through ISRO, meaning aforeign satellite operator must come to terms with its ostensible competitor,ISRO, in order to reach Indian customers. ISRO purchases the satellitebandwidth at prices it deems acceptable, and then resells it to customers.
In one of a dozen industry submissions that informed theUSTR report, the U.S. Satellite Industry Association (SIA) said ISRO then addsits own charges to the initial satellite bandwidth price, making that capacitymore expensive than what it would be without ISRO acting as a middleman.
“ISRO may structure contracts with the goal (explicitlystated at times) of moving the service to one of ISRO’s satellites oncecapacity is available,” the SIA said in its statement to USTR. “ISRO determinesthe rate at which the market grows.”
All this would appear at variance with India’s New TelecomPolicy of 1999, which grants access by Indian customers to Indian and foreignsatellite bandwidth, in coordination with India’s Department of Space. ISRO ispart of the Department of Space.
SIA said that once Indian authorities have determined thatthe foreign satellite operator has completed broadcast frequency coordinationwith the Insat system — a procedure handled through the Geneva-basedInternational Telecommunication Union, a U.N. affiliate — “there are notechnical or commercial reasons why foreign satellite capacity should need tobe procured through [ISRO], a direct competitor of foreign satellite operators.
“Local users in Indiashould be allowed to contract directly with any satellite operator that has theability to serve India,”SIA said in its statement.
Another curiosity in India’s regulatory regime, SIAsaid, is its ban on the use of Ku-band frequencies for broadcasts to cable headends. With Ku-band globally accepted as suitable for these transmissions,“[t]here is no technical or logical policy reason for this restriction,” SIAsaid.
Finally, Indian regulations on mobile satellite servicesinclude a security-related requirement that, in order to receive an operatinglicense in India, mobilesatellite operators must deploy gateway infrastructure within India. For asystem such as Iridium, which uses links between satellites to bypass the needfor an elaborate network of gateway Earth stations, the regulation is anobvious handicap. SIA said “more-advanced technologies other than locallyestablished gateways can fully meet security concerns. This requirement shouldbe removed.”
The principal commercial satellite fleet operators have longadopted a do-not-make-waves policy with respect to the barriers in India andChina, hoping that over time, the evolution of demand in these two nations willbe sufficient to crack open their markets.
USTR said, as it has previously, that it will “continue toraise the … concerns regarding the barriers to supplying satellite services inChina and India and will encourage these countries to consider changes to theirrespective frameworks.”
The USTR report, “2011 Section 1377 Review on ComplianceWith Telecommunications Trade Agreements,” is dated April 2011 and reflectsindustry and trade association comments submitted at the end of 2010. The reportis mandated annually as part of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of1988.